9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as under :- On 18-2-99, on receipt of information, central excise preventive officers of Ghaziabad intercepted two trucks bearing registration Nos. DL-IG/8-0665 and DL-IG/B-1415 on the Delhi - U.P. Border. Those trucks were found loaded with 15.160 MT. and 15.170 MT. respectively of copper ingots. Both drivers of the trucks handed over bills issued by M/s. Gautam Steel Centre, Ahmedabad and also consignment notes and challans issued by M/s. Surya Roadways, Ahmedabad, all dated 14-2-99, to the officers. The serial number of the bills were hand written and description of the goods mentioned therein was copper plates and not copper ingots which were actually loaded in the trucks. The officers detained both the trucks and the goods loaded t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statement of Joginder Singh, owner of the second truck. Summons were also issued to M/s. Northern Sales Corporation, Delhi in order to ascertain the identity of the consignee, origin and the duty paid character of the detained goods, but the same remained undelivered. The statement of the present appellant who claimed himself to be the proprietor of M/s. Surya Roadways at that time, was also recorded wherein he disclosed that one Mukesh Bhai hired two trucks from him on telephone and for those two trucks, the amount decided was Rs. 108/- per quintal and he arranged trucks from M/s. Palco Golden for Rs. 97/- per quintal and that he was to get Rs. 11/- per quintal, as commission. He further, disclosed that as per direction of Mukesh Bhai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om whose custody the goods were seized. Secondly, no penalty under Rule 209A of the Rules could be imposed on the appellant. 7.On the other hand, learned SDR has refuted the arguments of the counsel and reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 8.I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 9.To elaborate the first ground, the learned counsel has argued that even if the consignor of the goods shown in the bill, M/s. Gautam Steel Centre, Ahmedabad, did not come forward to claim the goods and furnished no proof regarding discharge of appropriate central excise duty in respect thereof, the goods should have been released to the appellant being a transporter of those goods under the contract under which his possessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were handed over by the drivers of the trucks at the time of interception, to the Central Excise Officers, the name of the consignor recorded was M/s. Gautam Steel Centre and not the appellant. Similarly, the name of the consignee recorded in the documents i.e. bills and challans, was M/s. Northern Sales Corporation. The appellant could not be taken to be trustee or bailee of the goods. He could only be said to be a person who was helping the hidden manufacturer in removal of the goods, without payment of Central Excise duty from one place to another. The manufacture was hidden as recorded manufacturer/consignor of the goods M/s. Gautam Steel Centre, did not accept the ownership of those goods. Their partner Shri Chandmal Jain denied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of Notification No. 125/75-C.E., dated 12-5-1975 on the presumption that base yarn had discharged duty liability before it was received for dyeing. It was, under these circumstances, the Apex Court observed that burden to prove that the goods were not duty paid, was on the Revenue and not on the buyer or job worker. But in the present case, the facts are quite different, as detailed above. The appellant is not buyer of the goods from the market. He has nowhere pleaded so in reply to the show cause notice. He is only a transporter who was to get commission on the transportation of the goods. 12.Similarly, law laid down in Anil Kumar Pandey v. C.C., Shillong (supra) is not of any help to the appellant in this case. That was the case wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f regarding payment of appropriate duty in respect thereof. The confiscated goods are excisable and dutiable.
14.Regarding imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of the Rules, I am of the view that in view of the facts and circumstances detailed above, the penalty had been rightly imposed on the appellant under Rule 209A, as he was facilitating the manufacturer, in clandestine removal of the goods from one place to another, without payment of duty under the fake documents. The amount of penalty imposed on him also cannot be said exorbitant in view of his conduct.
15.In view of the above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld against the appellant in toto. The appeal of the appellant is dismissed being without merit. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
